I received the issues of the enlarged Pravda only today,
16.VI. 1913, and hasten to congratulate the editorial staff and
contributors. I wish you every success. The important thing now, in my
opinion, is not to forget that we must fight to win 100,000
readers. For this we must (1) have a small, one-kopek, extremely popular
Sunday supplement. Write without fail, giving your opinion on this, and
also information on the estimates: i.e., how much extra money the
enlarged format has taken. And what the monthly expenses
now are, how much more than previously. The
great (and sole) danger for Pravda now is the loss of the
broad readership, loss of a position to fight for it.

This is the first business point, and I would ask you earnestly to
acquaint the publisher with all the business points and kindly let
me have your answer.

(2) On the question of the 7-hour day for postal employees, etc., the
editors have made an obvious mistake. We
are all prone to make mistakes, and there is nothing particularly wrong in
that. But, in persisting in their mistake, the editors, for a
long time to come, if not for always, are “leaving a thorn”,
marring their reputation and position both in Russia and in Europe. I was
very pleased to see from the secretary’s letter that not all the
members of the Editorial Board stood by the mistake. I earnestly advise you
to re-examine the question and take a different stand in print (by
publishing article by G. Z. unsigned, in the name of the
editors). Two lines would suffice: “Having re examined the matter,
the editors have come to this conclusion”—followed by G. Z.’s
article. Or: “Having re examined the matter at a fuller meeting of the
Editorial Board and contributors”. This is worse than simply “having
re-examined”.[4]

Let the liars from Luch dance a cancan for once over
this rectification—only false shame can prevent it being
made. It would be 1,000 times worse if Luch were forever
able to point to this error. An error rectified is an error no
more. Unrectified it becomes a festering sore. In such cases one must have
the courage to have it operated on at once. It won’t be very pleasant,
failing this, to have a number of Pravda friends—both individual
writers and organs of the press—dissociating themselves from
Pravda’s stand.

(3) As regards Y. K. I have already written once. His article on
Alexeyenko is excellent. The author, of course, can give such articles
regularly. But you do not pay him—it’s a disgrace!! He writes me that he
is going to stop writing. You couldn’t imagine, I trust, that the enlarged
format would involve extra expenses on paper and printing
alone. Naturally, you calculated on an unavoidable increase of
expenditure on the literary side too. Y. K. should top the
list. He has nothing else to live on now. We cannot afford to lose
such a contributor to both Pravda and Prosveshcheniye. I
therefore advise you most strongly to immediately adopt a decision to pay
Y. K—v 75 (seventy-five) rubles a month. This is the minimum for a
regular contributor to both newspaper and journal; don’t forget the
literary criticism section, too, which always
leaves much to be desired and without which a “big” newspaper is
impossible.

Will you please give me your reply on this immediately. I have a letter
from Y. K. in the tone of an ultimatum, and I consider it my duty to warn
the editors and publisher of Pravda that to run an enlarged paper
without the services of such a contributor is a thing I don’t know who can
think of.

(4) Vitimsky’s article in No. 123 is a very felicitous one in my
opinion. I congratulate the author. As for Stal, I think it ought
to be reprinted: it’s
good![5]

[[
I am enclosing a reply to
Vitimsky,[1]
which, I think, you ought to read (I am not sure whether Vitimsky’s letter
is a personal one; I don’t think it is).
]]

(5) Alexinsky’s letter concerning “Controversial
Issues”[2]
has been lying in the editorial office for a month, we have been
told. I cannot understand this attitude!! The editors, apparently, do
not know the position, do not know the history of the
Vperyod group, and have fallen into an error with
Mr. Bogdanov (about this separately). Why could not Alexinsky’s
letter have been forwarded to us here?? This is necessary in order to
discuss the one and only Vperyodist who had the sense to revolt
against the vile empirio-monism and similar abominations which disgrace the
proletarian party. In publishing Bogdanov’s mendacious
letters,[6] the editors have made it difficult to arrange a
general discussion regarding Alexinsky: his letter, too, may be worthless,
but we have to talk it over. For that purpose we ask you to send
his letter on to us as quickly as possible, and generally send such things
to us.

(6) In regard to the Bogdanov incident I am sending a separate letter
to the editors and publisher of
Pravda.[3]
This question is extremely serious. I am loath to come out against the
editors of Pravda in print—we have worked together too
long—but for me to support otzovism is a sin a 100 times worse
than supporting liquidationism—not
only worse, but more dishonest. Frankly, I would be obliged to come out in
print too against such support, which has become clear through publication
of Mr. Bogdanov’s letter. If this is a slip, let’s rectify it. If it is
not, we shall fight.

Send us Alexinsky’s letter. Very important. Alexinsky is
talking friendly, and you ... respond with Bogdanov!!

(7) I have received the money for April. That for May should
be sent. Please do not delay it. (I need money badly for my wife’s
treatment, for an operation.)

I am very much afraid that you may have alienated Plekhanov!! Potresov
lies and flings mud. To silence Plekhanov?? This would be an irretrievable
error.[7]

Thanks very much for the promise to send the missing Nos. of
Pravda and Luch. Only you mistakenly mentioned once a
different number instead of No. 8 (number eight) for 1912
(nineteen twelve). Will you please send me this No. 8. It was
returned from under arrest to the editorial office in 180 copies.

[4]On the closing of the debate on the estimates of the post and telegraph
department in the Fourth Duma on May 22 (June 4), 1913, voting was held on
the motion of the Duma Cadet group calling for a 7–hour day for post and
telegraph employees. The Duma Social-Democratic group, on the basis of
Point 3 (h) of the resolution on “The Social-Democratic Group in the
Duma” adopted at the Fifth (All-Russia) Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. in
1908, abstained from voting. As a result the motion for a 7–hour day. for
post and telegraph employees was rejected. Polemising with Luch in
its articles “Liberal Failure” (issue No. 117 for May 23) and
“Luch Against the S. D. Group” (issue No. 119 for May 25, 1913),
Pravda defended the wrong action of the S. D. group in the Duma.

In the resolution of the 1913 Poronin meeting of the C.C. with Party
officials on “Social-Democratic Activities in the Duma” Point 3 (h) was
revised and endorsed in a new and improved wording.

[5]The article by M. S. Olminsky (Vitimsky), “Pravda”, devoted
to the appearance of the paper in enlarged format was published in No. 123
for May 30, 1913.

In the same issue Pravda published the fragment of a poem by
the American poet, Horace Traubel, a former workman “Common Men and
Women” translated by L. Stal.

[6]Lenin is referring to A. Bogdanov’s letter-statement “A Factual
Explanation” published in No. 120 of Pravda, May 26, 1913, in
which Bogdanov tried to refute the fact, pointed out by Lenin in his
article “Controversial Issues”, that negation of Duma work and of the
employment of other legal possibilities derived from “Vperyodism” (see
present edition, Vol. 19, p. 154). Together with his letter “The Question
of Mr. Bogdanov and the Vperyod Group” (ibid., pp. 173–74) Lenin
sent in to Pravda a paragraph directed against Bogdanov’s
distortion of the Party’s history (this para graph was not published at the
time and has not yet been found). After the writing of his article
“Ideology” containing undisguised propaganda of Machist views Bogdanov
was struck off the list of Pravda contributors.

[7]In April–June 1913 Pravda carried articles by Plekhanov
“Under a Hail of Bullets (Passing Notes)”. One of them was directed
against A. N. Potresov, “Mr. Potresov in the Role of My Accuser”
(Nos. 112 and 114 for May 17 and 19, 1913). Following this Pravda
published no more articles by Plekhanov up to June 7, while Potresov, in
his feuilleton “In the Grip of His Past (On Plekhanov)” published in
Luck Nos. 119, 121 and 122 for May 25, 28 and 29, 1913, continued
to “fling mud” at Plekhanov. Criticism of Potresov’s attacks on Plekhanov
is given in Lenin’s article “Working-Class Party and Liberal Riders (On
Potresov)” (see Collected Works, Vol. 41, pp. 287–88).